From: basto@linux.cactus.org
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 8:00 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Cc: basto@cactus.org
Subject: Docket 00N-1396 & Docket 00D-1598

Dear Sir:

It has come to my attention that many genetically 
altered foods both on the market and coming to market 
do not have proper or mandatory labeling. The FDA has
done nothing despite concerns from many citizens about
these types of products.

The proposed docket rules:

* Do not require mandatory pre-market safety testing
* Do not require pre-market environmental review
* Do not require mandatory labeling of GE foods
* Restrict voluntary labeling of non-GE foods
* Require a mere letter of notification prior to the 
  marketing of a GE food
* Fail to ensure public access to adequate information 
  for independent review
* Are supported by industry and opposed by consumer groups

As a concerned citizen, I would like to see that:

* The FDA must require mandatory pre-market comprehensive 
  environmental review. Unlike conventional pollutants, 
  where a given amount of pollutant causes a limited amount 
  of damage, a small number of mutant genes could have a 
  population explosion and reproduce forever, causing 
  unlimited and irreparable damage.

* The FDA must require mandatory pre-market long-term health 
  testing. GE products could be toxic, cause allergic 
  responses, have lower nutritional value, and compromise 
  immune responses in consumers.

* The FDA must require mandatory labeling of GE products. 
  Without mandatory labeling, neither consumers nor health 
  professionals will know if an allergic or toxic reaction 
  was the result of a genetically engineered food. Consumers 
  would be deprived of the critical knowledge needed to hold 
  food producers liable should any of these novel products 
  be hazardous.

* The FDA must end its cozy relationship with the industries
  it purports to be regulating. People have been allowed to 
  work for a biotech company, then work for the FDA writing the 
  regulatory rules on that company's product, then go back to
  working for the company.  Ninety-two percent of FDA advisory 
  committee meetings had at least one conflict of interest.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Luis Basto